Myths about Urdu

[Omar1984]

Amigo, Hindi is the official language of india and not the national language... and i agree that copying is a common trait among all film makers, be it pakistani or indian filmmakers...

Copying is a common trait of only indian film makers who copy Pakistani Urdu songs and then label them as hindi. Take a look at these videos. Is there anyone in the world that copies as much as indians do.

Theres 17 parts to this series. Enjoy.

 

[EjazR]

I don't understand why some Pakistanis like bilal and Ninja are so insecure about Urdu and its origins.

Talk to any linguist and you will know that the Indo-Iranian tree that begins with Vedi Sanskrit and Prakrit opens to different branches including Avestan, Farsi as well as Hindvi, Marathi, Gujrathi, Punjabi and other branches. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranian_languages

The script does not define the langauge. The script is just a skin. Turkish used to be written in Arabic script, now it is written in roman script. So did the Turkish langauge change from "Muslim" Origin to "Christian" origin?

A language is always in continous change, it has to borrow words to grow. That is why half of the English vocabulary is made of words that originate in French, Latin, Arabic, Hindi and so on.

In linguistics, a language is defined by its grammatical construct and sentece structure, not just by its vocabulary. And in that Hindi and Urdu are identical.

Even Farsi comes from the same ancestral language as other Indo-Aryan langauges so obvioulsy they have shared words as well. If you go back further, Latin and Sanskrit have similar word structures as well.


The idea of using Persian script was to allow migrants, traders, soldiers, sufis who came to the plains in India to speak the local language. If you go to Kerala for example, you will find out that the early Arab traders and settlers on the coast started using Malayalam in Arabic script. They used a few loan words from Arabic as well ofcourse, but although the script was in Arabic, the language itself and its composition was Malayalam. You can't just say that because the script is arabic, therefore the langauge is Arabic. Arabs would be unable to understand what is written in that script.

Similarly, talk to a Persian in Urdu or give him a prose in Urdu and he will be unable to understand except a few words here and there. And try the same with a Hindi speaker and he will understand almost everything except for a few words here and there.


The main centres of Urdu historically have been Delhi, Lucknow and Hyderabad. Infact, Hyderabad for 300 years starting in the 15th centruy was a centre of Urdu consolidation. The poets of Rampur from different religions contributed greatly to Urdu literature.
Punjab was not seperate from Delhi,there were no sharp Indo-Pak borders before 1947 and cenrtainly many great Urdu poets are from Punjab like Allama Iqbal. Amir Khsrau widely regarded as one of the early prominent poet of Urdu by many wrote in both Persian and what he called then Hindavi was born and brought up in UP.

For some people who are so touchy about the closeness of Hindi/Urdu, please stop being so apologetic and defensive about it. And stop fawning our Persian as if that is the only language that is your "true idently" andhaving an identity crisis. Farsi is a great language and I have nothing against it.

But Urdu in itself is a language to be proud of. A language which alongwith its brother Hindi is pretty much the lingua franca of South Asia from Bengal to Balochistan. Be proud of that.

 

[53fd]

I don't understand why some Pakistanis like bilal and Ninja are so insecure about Urdu and its origins.

Ejaz, the origins of Urdu make sense with the historical and cultural context of its time, when the Muslim invaders came to the Indian subcontinent. There is no such evidence that a separate language Hindi developed around that time. There is no evidence that Hindi is older than Urdu, or in fact the Hindi we know today existed at all. Even though the term 'Urdu' was coined much later, Urdu as a language existed since a long time. You are free to call Urdu whatever you want: call it "Hindi" or "Gaddha" for all I care, but "Hindi" of today has no historical links to the language that first developed when Muslims first came to the Indian subcontinent. This is what I mean when I say Indians confuse the histories of Urdu and Hindi. They claim poets like Ghalib are Hindi poets, when a Hindi speaker cannot understand any of his poetry, or even read it in its original Nastaliq script. I have no problems in claiming Sanskrit is older than any language out there, but Sanskrit is not Hindi. And please, don't use wikipedia as your source of "information".

 

[Rig Vedic]

Actually, it is Avestan which is almost identical to Vedic Sanskrit. Persian falls under a separate category, though it was probably influenced by Avestan.

The internal evidence of the Vedas suggests that the Vedic language expanded westwards from the Gangetic plains, then northwards across Afghanistan. Northern Afghanistan was where the Zoroastrian culture was born, which then spread westwards into Persia.

Also, modern Hindi is basically the same as the Khadi Boli variant of Prakrit, which is a direct descendant of Sanskrit. Urdu is what you get if you insert Persian and Arab loan words into Khadi Boli.

 

[roadrunner]

Actually, it is Avestan which is almost identical to Vedic Sanskrit. Persian falls under a separate category, though it was probably influenced by Avestan.

The internal evidence of the Vedas suggests that the Vedic language expanded westwards from the Gangetic plains, then northwards across Afghanistan. Northern Afghanistan was where the Zoroastrian culture was born, which then spread westwards into Persia.

Also, modern Hindi is basically the same as the Khadi Boli variant of Prakrit, which is a direct descendant of Sanskrit. Urdu is what you get if you insert Persian and Arab loan words into Khadi Boli.

LOL, you little Hindutva fanatic. Sanskrit did NOT originate in Bharat. It originated well west out of modern day India, and moved eastward INTO modern Bharat.

 

[LaBong]

Its a known fact that the english along with the bengalis and other groups of india tried their best to destroy Urdu literature and remove it from the indian society!

Never have known the 'known fact'.

Anyway, at least bengalis are proud of their native language, unlike some people here!

 

[niaz]

Think the confusion here is what does one mean by Urdu. I have come across Dr Shirani’s claim that Urdu was started in Punjab. I don’t agree with Shirani. I am with Qadri who believes otherwise.

Ghaznavids were actually ousted from Iran by the Seljuqis. Mahmud died in 1030 AD. His son Massoud lost the lands of Iran and Central Asia to Seljuqis in 1040. It was then reduced to much smaller Sultanate and virtually a vassal state to the Saljuqis. Ghaznavids were ousted from Ghazni by the Allauddin Hussain of Ghor in 1151 and lasted for another 36 years at Lahore. Language of the common man in Lahore at that time was definitely not called Urdu.

Pakistan is home to two very old languages; Saraiki in its various dialects and her sister language Sindhi. Both of these languages are branches of the Prakirit along with Birj Bhasha. Even to date Saraiki is the most widely understood language in Pakistan after Urdu. Native language of my district (Sargodha) known as Watwati is the Shahpuri dialect of Saraiki. Other Saraiki dialects are Hindko, Derawali, Multani and Riysathi etc. I object to Urdu as originating in Lahore because the language spoken during the early times was called Hindi or Hindvi or Zaban Hind.

Multan was the largest city in those times as Data Sahib (d 1077) describes Lahore as located in the suburbs of Multan. Multani is a Saraiki dialect and Baba Farid's quote in Saraiki was mentioned as ‘Farmoud ba Zabane Hind' by one of his murids. Albiruni also mentions languages of Multan and Sindh in his memoirs. I believe some dialect of Saraiki was spoken at Lahore during the time the Ghaznavids and Ghurids. Saraiki and Birj Bhasha both originated from the ancient Prakirit; thus intelligible to the speakers of either language.

The word Urdu referred to the army camp until Shahjehan and it was only during the later Mughal period that Urdu was used to describe the language. When I mean Urdu, I refer to Urdu Mualla or high/exalted Urdu. This form or dialect is an evolution of the ancient Indo Iranian language and was nurtured in Bahmini Deccan states as Rekhta. The langauage reached its Zenith during 19th Century at urban centers of India (Delhi, Lukhnow, Lahore and Hyderabad).

Mir Taqi Mir has a well-known couplet

Khugar nahain kuch younhi hum Rekhta goey kay
Maashooq jo tha apna Bashanda e Deccan tha
Meaning that we have got into the habit of speaking Rekhta not without reason. Our beloved was resident of Deccan (referring to Wali Dakini).

I have had chance to visit Delhi, Agra and Lukhnow in the 1990’s. As soon as you leave the town centers, the language changes. I found difficulty in understanding the Purabi dialect of Hindi. Just as a native of Lahore would feel when he listens to the Kaafis of Ghulam Farid spoken in pure Multani.

Urdu is a beautiful and polite language and Urdu poetry as well as Urdu afsaana has given me tremendous enjoyment over the years. So what if our beloved Urdu originated in India.

In the end, I would like to quote Parveen Shakir, a flower that died young.

Kaisey kahdoon key mujhe chore dia hai usney
Baat tau such hay magar baat hai ruswaii ki

Wo jehan bhi gaya, lauta tau marey pass ayaa
Bus yehi baat hai achchee marey harjaii ki.

 

[fallstuff]

And I thought Bengalis are most racist when it comes to language.

Bengalis are not racist, we reached the state of enlightenment .

 

[53fd]

I object to Urdu as originating in Lahore because the language spoken during the early times was called Hindi or Hindvi or Zaban Hind.

Like I said, the term 'Urdu' was coined much later, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist then in different forms. You are free to call 'Urdu' whatever you want, call it 'Hindi' or anything else, but just remember, the 'Hindi' you are referring to has nothing to do with the Hindi spoken in India today.

When I mean Urdu, I refer to Urdu Mualla or high/exalted Urdu.

Yes, you are refering to the Rekhta form of Urdu. That is just one form of Urdu. I find it surprising that you only think 'high/exalted Urdu' is real Urdu, and 'Shudh Hindi' is not real Hindi. Contradicting really. Note: the term Urdu wasn't coined till then. It was called many different things, but the language spoken at that time has strong resemblances with the Urdu of today, not really with the Hindi today. I invite everyone to read poetry from Khusro to Mir Taqi Mir, Ghalib to Bahadur Shah Zafar, Shibli Nomani to Muhammad Iqbal and Josh Mallihabadi. You will find strong influences of Persian and Arabic words in them. I will say it again: Urdu has always been Persianized, Hindi has never been Sanksritized.

The origins of Urdu make sense with the historical and cultural context of its time, when the Muslim invaders came to the Indian subcontinent. There is no such evidence that a separate language Hindi developed around that time. There is no evidence that Hindi is older than Urdu, or in fact the Hindi we know today existed at all.

 

[EjazR]

I don't understand why some Pakistanis like bilal and Ninja are so insecure about Urdu and its origins.

Ejaz, the origins of Urdu make sense with the historical and cultural context of its time, when the Muslim invaders came to the Indian subcontinent. There is no such evidence that a separate language Hindi developed around that time. There is no evidence that Hindi is older than Urdu, or in fact the Hindi we know today existed at all. Even though the term 'Urdu' was coined much later, Urdu as a language existed since a long time. You are free to call Urdu whatever you want: call it "Hindi" or "Gaddha" for all I care, but "Hindi" of today has no historical links to the language that first developed when Muslims first came to the Indian subcontinent. This is what I mean when I say Indians confuse the histories of Urdu and Hindi. They claim poets like Ghalib are Hindi poets, when a Hindi speaker cannot understand any of his poetry, or even read it in its original Nastaliq script. I have no problems in claiming Sanskrit is older than any language out there, but Sanskrit is not Hindi. And please, don't use wikipedia as your source of "information".

See again you are becoming defensive and brining inconsistent observations as "facts"


Do all muslims of the subcontinent speak Urdu? Urdu is not even native to present day Pakistan! The languages that are native to Pakistan are Punjabi, Sindhi, Balouchi, Pashto, Hindko, Seraiki and so on.

Similarly the first muslims who came to Indian subcontinent came in the south and speak Malayalam or Tamil. In the east they speak Bengali or Assamese. Urdu is native to the UP/Bihar region, Delhi and Deccan Hyderabad. So does it makes sense that Urdu is a language "created" by muslims? Or is it more accurate to say that just like all other languages, cominginling of people from West and Central Asia resulted in the local lanauges in the Indian subcontinent borrowing words from that langauge and coming up with the present day Urdu/Hindi structure we know today?


Do you know about Amir Khusrau(1253-1325)? He wrote couplets in Hindavi--at least that's what he called it. But he did use nastaliq script to write and loan words from Farsi. This is considered as the maturation of the Urdu/Hindi language where it started attaining the poetic form.

Historically, Hindi/Urdu did not have a sharp divide at all. This was the reason why Hindustani was proposed as the national language for undivided India with both scripts as official scripts. But in the highly charged atmosphere, highlighting differences between "Hindi" and "Urdu" along religious lines helped exclusionary mindsets politcally. Even today the same mindset continues, in both India and Pakistan for that matter.

If you read through the consitutional debates in the 1930s, an intelligent Tamil Indian had proposed to do away the nastaliq and devangiri script and use roman so as to normalise the language and use a neutral script. But that is a seperate matter.

The acid test for Urdu/Hindi is just talk to someone from Central Asia or Iran and see if they understand it.


Again, the script alone does not define the language. Language is to do with linguistics and sound. And what script you use to present the sounds is interchangable. I gave you examples of how Arab settlers on the west coast in Kerala used Arabic script to read and write Malayalam. Now that language does not become Arabic, or even related to it except for a few loan words here and there.

Similarly, Central Asian and Persian migrants, traders, sufis, artisans, soldiers e.t.c. who came to the Indian plains used the Nastaliq script so as to read and write the local lanaguage. Infact, most of the "invaders" if you will were farsi speakers and persian remaind the langauge of the court. However the average people spoke Hindi/Urdu mainly around the Delhi to Bihar belt and in Hyderbad Deccan. Ofcourse there was slight dialect shifts from a Punjabi speaking Urdu/Hindi to a Bihari to a hyderabadi. But the general structure and grammar of the language remains the same,

 

[EjazR]

LOL, you little Hindutva fanatic. Sanskrit did NOT originate in Bharat. It originated well west out of modern day India, and moved eastward INTO modern Bharat.

Alberuni is probably one of the greatest travellers and scholars of his time and an excellent source of History about India.

When he learnt Sanskrit he described it as the language of India. His Kitabul Hind is filled with translation of various sanskrit works from India about Astronomy philosophy and religion. You might be alluding to the fact that Vedic Sanskrit originated around the Indus Valley civilisation which is in present day Pakistan, but like Albiruni most of the world at that point in time referred to the region as Hind.

 

[53fd]

See again you are becoming defensive and brining inconsistent observations as "facts"

Do all muslims of the subcontinent speak Urdu? Urdu is not even native to present day Pakistan! The languages that are native to Pakistan are Punjabi, Sindhi, Balouchi, Pashto, Hindko, Seraiki and so on.

Similarly the first muslims who came to Indian subcontinent came in the south and speak Malayalam or Tamil. In the east they speak Bengali or Assamese. Urdu is native to the UP/Bihar region, Delhi and Deccan Hyderabad. So does it makes sense that Urdu is a language "created" by muslims? Or is it more accurate to say that just like all other languages, cominginling of people from West and Central Asia resulted in the local lanauges in the Indian subcontinent borrowing words from that langauge and coming up with the present day Urdu/Hindi structure we know today?

I think you are confusing a lot of things I have mentioned before. I am not saying Urdu is a Pakistani language, so that whole argument of yours is moot.

I am saying that it is the language of the Muslims because Persian (Muslim) invaders came into Delhi via Lahore. Urdu developed when the Persian soldiers interacted with the locals of the region. We know a lot of languages are older than Urdu: for example: Punjabi, Saraiki, Sanskrit etc are undoubtedly all older than Urdu. However, what you have failed to provide (except the regular hogwash) is any solid evidence as to what historical context a separate language called Hindi (which sounded very similar to Urdu) developed during the same period. I have given you a logical explanation on how Urdu was born and developed during that time, which makes sense in a historical context. You have provided me no such thing. Of course, Persian remained the language of the courts for sometime, but Urdu was developing alongside it with full force, and eventually it displaced Persian as the language of the courts.

You can call Urdu 'Hindi' or 'Hindvi', but the language spoken at that time has strong resemblances with the Urdu of today, not really with the Hindi today. I never said Urdu is a Pakistani language: Pakistan after 1947 adopted it as its national language for the first time. However, this is a discussion about Urdu and Hindi, not Pakistan and India, so please don't mix up different issues. Urdu may have been born in either Lahore or Delhi, I don't care, but what we do know is that majority of its development took place in (Lucknow) UP and Hyderabad, so of course, India has played a most telling part in the development of Urdu, there is no denying those facts.

If you read poetry from Khusro to Mir Taqi Mir, Ghalib to Bahadur Shah Zafar, Shibli Nomani to Muhammad Iqbal and Josh Mallihabadi. You will find strong influences of Persian and Arabic words in them. I will say it again: Urdu has always been Persianized, Hindi has never been Sanksritized. These were all Urdu poets that India claims were Hindi poets unfortunately. The fact is, Hindi has no INDEPENDENT history itself in terms of literary work, once you establish that the Urdu of today has all the historical links to the language spoken at that time.

 

[Developereo]

I think you guys are saying the same thing. This is what I understand from the discussion so far:

- Western soldiers speaking Persian/Turkish/Arabic mixed with Seraiki-speaking locals in Lahore to create a new language called Hindvi.
- The language evolved further in Lucknow, Hyderabad and Delhi, becoming known as Urdu.
- Persian/Turkish/Arabic words were not introduced later into Urdu, they have been there since its genesis.
- For political/religious reasons, there was a deliberate campaign to modify Urdu by replacing 'Muslim' words by Sanskrit words. The resulting language was called Hindi.

 

[Rig Vedic]

LOL, you little Hindutva fanatic. Sanskrit did NOT originate in Bharat. It originated well west out of modern day India, and moved eastward INTO modern Bharat.

The evidence is that the spread was in the opposite direction. You'll find that Assamese (a descendant of Magadhan Prakrit) is far closer to Vedic Sanskrit than any modern language in Central Asia or Persia.

The older parts of the Rig Veda refer to rivers and places in the Central Gangetic Valley, and the (now dry) Saraswati river; the middle parts additionally include references to the Indus valley, and the newest parts include references to Afghanistan. (see - A great book about the Great Book)

Map of Vedic India (Vedic period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia):

 

[53fd]

EjazR:

I have read all the works from Khusro to Mir Taqi Mir, Ghalib to Bahadur Shah Zafar, Shibli Nomani to Muhammad Iqbal and Josh Mallihabadi in recent times. I did not need any extra knowledge of complicated Sanskrit to understand their works, because the language used in that time is the same as the Urdu used today. I know for a fact that the Hindi speakers of today cannot understand the works of these poets. The term Urdu was coined later to create a divide between Indian Muslims and Hindus. Even the implementation of Devanagari script over the original Nastaliq script for Urdu was created to divide the Indian Muslims and Hindus.